View Post [edit]
Poster: | Fact_Checker | Date: | Sep 29, 2009 6:59pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Writing about "Lost, Lonely and Vicious", one post says that "The SWV version has their watermark, however." and (in a later post): "It has a watermark. A watermark means that the version of the movie on DVD is copyright. I tried to help steer you toward some very low-cost copies of the film on DVD."
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=257756
Elsewhere, there was a thread that began "As far as I can tell, there are no LIGHTS OUT episodes on the IA at present.
"I have a couple of episodes - only 1 or 2 - that don't have a watermark/screen bug in the corner from either a DVD company or the Sci-Fi Channel. I will not upload something with a watermark.
"If somebody can tell me for sure that LIGHTS OUT is PD and thus safe to upload ..."
In a later message, he wrote: "I watch out for watermarks and screen bugs in the corner of these shows, after what [an] informed forum poster said that those very watermarks make those specific recordings copyright, whether the original shows are still in copyright or not. I personally won't take a chance. That's why I mentioned that."
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=257576
The subject of trademarks and watermarks (not always the same thing) was covered over the course of several messages in this thread:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=265215
This quite rightly leads to an appropriate question:
"What if you cover up the watermark with a different logo? How does the copyright work on public domain movies released on DVD? Are they no longer for public use once they are released? If you cover it up, can anybody tell?"
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=232468
As Video-Cellar right points out in message #265361 (in the thread that begins with message #265215): "Trademark infringement is not the same as copyright infringement."
There are two issues brought up when confronted with the choice of whether to copy or upload video from sources that have a watermark:
1) Has the placement of the watermark onto the pre-existing image altered the original to such an extent that the new version is entitled to be regarded as a derivative version eligible for copyright protection of its own?
2) Does the dissemination of a copy marked with the identity of a currently-operating company, without that company's authorization, amount to misrepresentation that the company sanctioned or authorized that particular copy or its distribution?
On the first point, Video-Cellar pointed out, "Another issue that is often raised is that the watermarked videos could be claimed as a new copyrightable derivative work. On Mill Creek DVDs the watermarks are added mechanically with very little creativity."
I concur. The U.S. Supreme Court famously ruled that exercising a lot of effort but a small amount of creativity, does not entitle the resulting work to copyright protection, in the Feist ("White Pages") decision. Read a summary of this decision at:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c16C.html#s046
The page that this summary is on writes up a number of cases which are grouped under the general idea of "originality is a prerequisite for copyright," including three other Supreme Court decisions. http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c16C.html
The main lesson of the White Pages decision is that there has to be some creative decisions made for a work to be entitled to copyright, not just an obvious arrangement with no true decisions, as is the case when phone number listings are alphabetized in a telephone directory, which is what led to the Supreme Court ruling in 1991 that the phone directories were not entitled to copyright.
When you consider the typical watermark, you won't find any creativity. The mark stays on the screen in the same place for long periods of time. Typically, the company decides to keep the watermark on screen for the full length of the movie, unless the company policy is to only cover the opening credits or everything but the opening credits. In any event, the time decisions are arbitrary.
Moving onto the second question: are watermarks grounds for the company whose watermark it is to keep others from using a copy with their watermark?
I say yes. However, let's return to question asked by MattWallner in message #232468:
"What if you cover up the watermark with a different logo? How does the copyright work on public domain movies released on DVD? Are they no longer for public use once they are released? If you cover it up, can anybody tell?" (http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=232468)
I say that this should be fine. When you've covered up the watermark, there is no longer the identification of a particular company with the particular copy being offered for viewing or downloading. It might be asked: Aren't you still blocking the same pixels of the original image as were blocked by the watermark?, and: Isn't it a copyright violation if the version with the covered-up watermarks has blockage at the same point on the screen as the version with the watermark?
Here, you should consider that the placement of the watermark doesn't entail creativity. Pretty much every company that puts a watermark on the screen puts it in the same place: the lower right corner, ever so slightly higher than the bottom of the screen, and ever so to the left of the right-side edge. (TV broadcast networks, local stations, cable channels, VHS and DVD companies, and even YouTube have all gravitated to this placement.) There are not any unique decisions going on here.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | finnobrit | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 4:10am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by finnobrit on 2009-09-30 11:10:55
Reply [edit]
Poster: | k-otic | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 1:23pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Fact_Checker | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 4:30pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Merely pointing a camera at a film print, or scanning it, doesn't result in a creative new work. The result is merely a file filled with computer typographic characters that appear arbitrary to a human being.
Anyone who believes that restoration is copyrightable should also carefully read the court decisions and the text of the law. Merely putting something back the way it was before (which is restoration in its literal meaning) does not result in a new work and is not creative. There is no reason under such circumstances for copyright to last beyond what the original copy did. Where you know of a "restored" work which is entitled to a new copyright, fid out if the "restored" work has something new, such as a new musical soundtrack, a new introduction, or changes in editing.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 10:41pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-10-01 05:41:37
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:48am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
http://cartoonsonfilm.com/disclaimer.html
Here, the "collector" of these cartoons, Tom Stathe, seems to be saying that he has some "ownership" of the materials by virtue of having "restored" them, which seems to mean he has transferred them to DVD, maybe cleaned them up a bit, perhaps added music?
Do you think this is a legitimate claim of ownership in the works in question? He has not changed the films content to any degree I can see. And how to really determine this if the "owner" is probably unwilling to show off the originals?
I understand the desire to protect one's own business interests and thwart competition, but where is the line drawn on what is a"restoration" and what is not?
Of slightly more concern is the fact that, according to the Film Superlist 1894-1939, quite a few of the titles he is offering did have their copyrights renewed.
This aside, does anyone think this is a legitimate claim of ownership?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:19am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-28 09:19:13
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Fact_Checker | Date: | Oct 1, 2009 2:16am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Oct 1, 2009 12:31am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-10-01 07:31:37
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_1_VDI.jpg
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_2_Virgin_Video.jpg
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_3_10_star.jpg